We Have To Make Sure the “Green New Deal” Doesn’t Become Green Capitalism

Email this article to a friend

We need to critically analyze some of the shortfalls of the capitalist logic embedded in this plan. We have to push back and improve upon the Green New Deal.

Incoming Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made waves in late November when she called for a Green New Deal (GND)—a plan to “transition” the U.S. economy to “become carbon neutral” over the course of 10 years. In adraft resolution, she proposes the formation of a Select Committee to develop a plan for massive public works programs, powered by a jobs guarantee and public banks, with the goal of “meeting 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources.” According to Ocasio-Cortez, the plan aims to eliminate poverty, bring down greenhouse gas emissions, and “ensure a ‘just transition’ for all workers, low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities.”

The GND is still in its nascent phase, and concrete details haven’t yet been hashed out, but the proposal has received backing from the youth climate organization, the Sunrise Movement, which staged direct actions and protests to build political support for the framework. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is throwing his political weight behind the plan and 35 House members have endorsed it. Ocasio-Cortez—who identifies as a democratic socialist—is poised to lead the progressive conversation about climate change at the federal level.

Yet, some climate justice organizations are responding with more cautious support. The Climate Justice Alliance (CJA), a network of front-line environmental justice organizations, including the Southwest Workers Union and Black Mesa Water Coalition,praised the GND as “a much-needed aggressive national pivot away from climate denialism to climate action.” But CJA said in a statement released earlier this week that “the proposal for the GND was made public at the grasstops [as opposed to grassroots] level. When we consulted with many of our own communities, they were neither aware of, nor had they been consulted about the launch of the GND.”

While the GND is in its developmental phase, the Climate Justice Alliance says it is critical for social movement groups to fight for the best possible version of the deal—and ensure that it does not include false solutions such as “carbon markets, offsets and emissions trading regimes or geoengineering technologies.” CJA says any jobs plan should restore and protect workers’ rights to organize and form unions, and it should be predicated on non-extractive policies that build “local community wealth that is democratically governed.” Any deal must ensure “free, prior and informed consent by Indigenous peoples,” CJA insists, and should be directed by those communities bearing the brunt of the “dig, burn, dump” economy.

In These Times spoke with Kali Akuno, director of the CJA-affiliated Cooperation Jackson, a Missisippi-based group that aims to build a “solidarity economy” that is “anchored by a network of cooperatives and worker-owned, democratically self-managed enterprises.” According to Akuno, movements must defend the best components of the GND, while challenging–and offering alternatives to–the capitalist logic embedded in some of its proposals. “While this is still in the drafting phase,” he argues, “let’s get it as near perfect as we possibly can.”

Sarah Lazare: What do you think of the proposal for a Green New Deal put forward by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Kali Akuno: One, I’m glad that something like this is being introduced and is being discussed so widely, particularly coming from a freshman congresswoman. I don’t think that’s insignificant at all. I’m excited Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even had the courage to take this up. Let’s be real: To walk in as a freshman congresswoman in this environment and atmosphere, she should be applauded.

Is it perfect, is it everything we want? Absolutely not. To a certain extent, that’s fine. She has to play ball in the balance of power as it concretely exists. The broad public debate that the introduction of the Green New Deal proposal has generated presents an opportunity for the Left to strengthen our forces, gather new forces and expand the base of the movement. Her putting this forward is a profound opportunity for the Left.

I think the Left needs to seize it. We can do that by talking about it: the things we support, why we support them, the things we want to see strengthened, improved and changed. We should communicate that as far and wide as we can. We have to shift the conversation and put the Right on the defensive. Right now, they’re on the offensive.

We need to critically analyze some of the shortfalls of the capitalist logic embedded in this plan. We have to push back and improve upon the Green New Deal. In a real practical and concrete way, the Left has to intervene.

Dismissing it and not having a dialogue and talking just about how it’s imperfect is not good enough. If we believe there is a limited time to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we have to seize every opportunity to educate people, create the policy framework, and to take action to implement it on the ground in real time. We need to talk about it, raise awareness and build a base for our point of view. Let’s use the platform her winning the election has provided to move people and to take action.

Sarah: What should a left intervention look like?

Kali: Let me get to the heart of it. Because of the capitalist logic that’s embedded in what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put forth, at this point, the Left needs to intervene.

We need to be putting out and elevating the counter-proposals many of us have been putting forward. There is the “just transition” framework coming out of some social movements and organized labor. There are some concrete suggestions many of us have been putting forward for years. Healing the soil, reintroducing small-scale agriculture, restoring the commons, making more space available for wildlife reintroduction. This has been coming from the It Takes Roots Alliance, which consists of the Indigenous Environmental Network, Climate Justice Alliance, the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance and the Right to the City Alliance. On the ground, organizations from oppressed communities have been putting forward a just transition for a while.

Representatives from It Takes Roots are opening a dialogue with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office. Our aim is to lift up our demands and concrete solutions and have them constitute core components of the legislation that she puts forward. We’re seeing the beginning of an opening in that regard.

While this is still in the drafting phase, let’s get it as near perfect as we possibly can.

Sarah: What needs to be improved?

Kali: There are some things in the framework that she put forth that need to be challenged. The one that I always highlight is this notion that the different types of solutions that are developed through the entrepreneurial innovations that come out of this program, like renewable energy technologies, that the U.S. government and major transnational corporations should be exporters of this energy and knowledge. That’s deeply embedding this thing as a new export industry, which is a new cycle of capital accumulation. That part really needs to be challenged. This is trying to embed the solution in market-based dynamics, but the market is not going to solve this problem.

Editor’s note: In her draft text calling for a committee on the Green New Deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez includes the following objective, to be accomplished within 10 years of the plan’s implementation: “making ‘green’ technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.”

Sarah: U.S. industries have played tremendous and disproportionate role in driving climate change. It seems predatory for those industries to develop “solutions” and then turn around and sell them to the Global South.

Kali: Yeah, it’s this logic of, I created the problem, I control the resolution of the problem through various mechanisms, I play a big role in preventing any serious motion that might happen at the level of intergovernmental exchange through the United Nations—under Obama, and now under 45. I set it up so that we come up with these technology solutions—some are pure scientific fiction–come up with a few carbon sequestration solutions, and I’m going to charge exorbitant rates selling technology to the Global South. Primarily Trump, the United States and western Europe created the problem and prevent anyone from coming up with solutions. They come up with market solutions and sell them back to us through force.

We need to struggle with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others about this. We have to frame this in a way that really speaks to the global nature of the problem. We have to include the peoples of the world at the frontlines of the transition in the discussion to resolve it - Indigenous peoples, the peoples of Oceania, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and the African continent. It’s not just a national problem. The way this is framed is really as if we’re going to stop certain problems within U.S. borders. But carbon emissions don’t observe national boundaries—they never have and never will. Nation-state policy limits us in certain ways. That’s another aspect of this that we have to push back on and challenge. This has to include front-line communities in the United States and from all throughout the world.

Sarah: What would the ideal global climate policy look like? What do you think about the framework of reparations?

Kali: Reparations is one of the key aspects that has to be introduced into the dialogue. The United States has, under all administrations, blocked this kind of approach. It is not new to Trump. The concept of reparations needs to be introduced into several different levels of the conversation. You can think of reparations in terms of financial compensation, and you can think of it in terms of decolonization—returning lands back to indigenous and colonized people subjected to the United States and Western Europe much of the past 500 years.

The market-based capitalist extractive system has been highlighted through the World Trade Organization. You have intellectual patents that are being codified into law through the WTO, which the United States and Western Europe have pushed on the world. If we look at Monsanto, they basically took agricultural practices and indigenous knowledge, codified it with their technology of splicing genes, and now have power and control over it. Patents need to be abolished and dissolved and we need to open up space in many areas for small farmers like those aligned with the global peasant movement, La Via Campesina, to return to traditional practices of growing food. That is a major form of reparations: repairing harm that’s been done.

Sarah: What about the fossil fuel industry? Should we be talking about going to battle with the industry? Shutting it down?

Kali: There is no question about it. That has to be target number one. We have to adopt a program of “keep it in the ground.” There is no way to get around that. That’s a demand coming from Indigenous communities. If we just look at the raw science, all the raw data that is out there, that’s what we need to do. We’re locked into an old exploitative logic that is only maintained through the grip the petrochemical companies have on the political process. We are going to have to take them on head on.

What happened at Standing Rock really points the way forward for the future. I don’t think we should hide from that or step away from that. We’re going to have to take direct action on a massive scale to shut that industry down on an international level. There are a ton of alternatives that could be scaled up—solar, wind—and they need to be scaled up.

To think that they can keep pumping and drilling, and we’ll just phase them out with alternatives, on the basis of some kind of market logic, is not going to work. There is no question that we need to adopt a “keep it in the ground” policy—like, yesterday. That has to be one of our central demands.We have to scale up our campaigns against the oil companies, and we have to win. This is a necessary political struggle.

Sarah: Can you talk more about the concept of a “just transition”—where it comes from, what it’s calling for?

Kali: Just so folks know, the term comes out of the labor movement in the 1980s, particularly some folks who were working in labor sectors, including the petrochemical and thermonuclear industries. The concept was adopted to say that our interests around having a clean and safe environment, and your interest in having a living-wage job, are not and should not be opposed. There is a system in place keeping us at odds with each other in the short term. We have to change the system. A key part is taking care of our communities, making sure that the overall impacts of toxic contamination are thoroughly addressed. There has to be a way in which new jobs are created that enable workers to go through a just transition from one set of skills to another set of skills and maintain a high standard of living.

For Cooperation Jackson, which is part of theIt Takes Roots Alliance, we fully endorse the just transition framework. This means highlighting grassroots, independent solutions in front-line communities: programs centering on reparations, decolonization and building a democratic economy through the advancement of the social and solidarity economy. For us at Cooperation Jackson, this is linked to a program of eco-socialist development. We are going to have to ultimately do a major overhaul in how things are produced, distributed, consumed and recycled back into the natural resource systems that we depend on. If we don’t think about just transition in a long-term, holistic way, we are missing the point. To think we can make some tweaks to capitalism or expansive “carbon neutral” production—that is also missing the point.

To address our deep problems, we have to shift wealth and power—it has to be moved from the United States and Europe to the rest of the world. We know we are going to run into a great deal of resistance from corporations and governments. We want to include that in our narrative of what a just transition entails.

Right now, as we speak, the COP24 climate talks are happening in Poland, and there are workers there in the coal industry who are trying to appropriate the term “just transition” to say “clean coal” is part of the just transition, which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the concept, especially knowing how that industry is contributing to the crisis we are in.

Sarah: What do you think about the Green New Deal’s call for a jobs guarantee?

Kali: It excites me, because I could see the immediate benefits here in my community in Jackson, Mississippi. That would create a lot of jobs for the young people in my community for the people who are chronically unemployed and underemployed. However, we should push for this plan with open eyes. There’s a limit to how many jobs could be created and how long they could be sustained. At a certain point, the logic of expansion has to run its course and end. You have to go back to eco-socialism. There need to be limits we impose on ourselves. We can’t just keep extracting minerals out of the earth—we’re going to have to figure out some natural limits to live in. I would like to see more of that infused into the Green New Deal: real conversations about our natural limits and how to create a truly sustainable system, so that we don’t exhaust all of the earth’s resources and deprive them to future generations. We have to start thinking about that now.

Sarah: Among other things, the Green New Deal calls for new investment in public banking. The draft text reads, “Many will say, ‘Massive government investment! How in the world can we pay for this?’ The answer is: in the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.”

What do you think of this public banking component?

Kali: We are big-time supporters of public banking. We’ve been thinking of that in relation to the implementation of the Jackson-Kush Plan going back 10 years, and we’re still trying to figure out how to put it in practice on the municipal level. I’m excited to see it embedded in Green New Deal proposal. Without that, you won’t have certain kinds of capital controls over the process. But we need to make sure there’s going to be sufficient investment in communities. I don’t think enough of the Left is really talking about it.

Some people will say public banking is just another reform measure in the logic of capitalism. That’s true but we’re not going to eliminate finance overnight, like it or not. One of the first steps in the socialist transition as we see it, is that we’re going to have to learn how to discipline capital and put it to public use. That’s a key thing that I think public banks will help us do as we learn and grow. There will still be contradictions to deal with, on display in struggle against the pipeline in North Dakota, because the public banks there are invested in that. This is not without contradiction, but we will have to set them up to be run by communities, and they must have a profoundly different orientation and logic. Whoever on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s team that put that in there, I was very much pleased to see it.

Sarah: To what extent were front-lines environmental justice groups consulted about the Green New Deal?

Kali: As an individual I was not consulted, but I think it’s a two-way street, because I also didn’t do much to help her get elected. The natural inclination is you’re going to listen to the folks who support you. The political trade off, whether we like it or not, is that you listen to those who put skin in the game to help you. That’s a reality we need to start with. Whether or not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reaches out, we have an obligation to tap her on her shoulder and say some of these ideas are terrible, here’s why, here are alternatives, here are examples of what the alternative looks like in practice—you can elevate them and use them as a model. That’s our task on the left—to intervene in that particular way. It’s not a question of whether or not she will listen: She’s an elected official, and we have move her to listen through the force of our organizing initiatives. We have to struggle with her to make sure she votes in the broadest interests possible, since she’s trying to lead this on a national level.

For me, it’s our task to hit her up, to contact her, to make sure we are very upfront and vocal from this point forward, to make sure what we’re demanding and proposing is very clear. We have to win other folks over to that position as well. Some of the best ideas might not carry the day if they don’t have an organized constituency behind them. She’s going to have to go to battle, she’s going to have to fight for the Green New Deal, and she’s probably going to listen to those forces that have the greatest leverage in terms of resources, or the greatest number of voices in sheer numbers. Those are things we have to deliver—we need to deliver that to make sure she’s accountable to our demands. We need to be real about how this game is going to play out. And be clear about what we bring to the table to make sure we get the outcomes we need.

Forget you. The white working class suffered hardships as well! The democratic party is not for whites anymore its for little bitches who blame my generation for things that happened 200 years ago! FUCK YOU!

Posted by Nick Taylor on 2019-02-02 20:47:40

The costs of inaction or further delay will be monstrous in comparisons to the costs of acting in a timely manner; and this is to say nothing of the lives lost, psychic toll and broad impacts on human species and all others. I agree, draconian measures are not usually desirable; but they are inevitable when there are no better options left. And at some point, probably fairly soon, that will be the situation. It would be far better if public resources were diverted from inherently wasteful activities (war and futile attempts to maintain empire being the biggest) and used instead to make a just and peaceful transition to an ecologically sustainable society.

In my country which I believe is the biggest per-capita GHG emitter on the planet, we are so far behind other advanced nations not only in moving to renewable energy production but just as importantly, in terms of energy efficiency. There is ENORMOUS potential for the latter here; and probably, in many other nations as well.

That is a function of both a broken political system where private capital effectively controls most policy; but also of a serious lack of climate change reporting by the main-stream media. Even when the topic has been broached, it has often wrongly been presented by both propagandists and news media as a "debate", providing cover to enough of the denialist public and their elected & other public officials even though the relevant scientific community had long come to a consensus about the nature and cause of the crisis.

Also, I don't think anyone would argue now that there is any single magic-bullet solution whether renewably-energized mass transit or anything else. At this stage every single source of GHG emissions must be addressed. In the U.S. transportation is one of the biggest sectors of energy used, but that's perhaps only somewhere around 28% - and that includes shipping, i.e. trucks, trains, ships & airplanes.

Drastic, across-the-board GHG reductions (reversing the increases of recent years in many areas) are needed in every sector - not just transportation, but in housing (heating & cooling), commerce, electricity generation, etc.

The immensity of the threats, along with the multitude of the sources of the underlying cause indeed call for an all-hands-on-deck approach ...a movement, really, that is as big in scale and as urgently focused as preparing for war or dealing with economic depression. I think that's why some have borrowed the term "New Deal" for this proposal in the U.S.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-18 13:08:41

Well, we seem to be agreeing. Although I think that, even if everyone moved to renewably-charged mass transit tomorrow for every journey, it would make little or no difference to global warming, it is still a worthy goal. But getting there is a much harder problem than I've yet seen it described.

There is as yet no mass public movement in my nation, the UK, that would consider giving up its personal transport vehicle and mixing with the poor on a bus, no matter how well made and run. My next-door neighbour has a large VW diesel car that he uses to take him on his own to the local supermarket, about 5 mins walk, to carry one bag of groceries. Persuading such people to scrap that car is beyond me. And there's no conceivable bus network that would be sufficient and efficient for the myriad kinds of journeys most people take every day by car.

All action against AGW will be tough and expensive, a cost everyone in society will need to pay in varying degrees. We've not begun considering how to do this. I've had many online debates with Greens who seriously advocate installing authoritarian governments and bringing back capital punishment for deniers. There is a disturbingly anti-democratic, technocratic tinge to some of those people, and they are a substantial proportion of activists.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-18 12:01:26

What you are ignoring is the elephant in the room. Physics and biology (or more accurately, the world and operating principles they attempt to describe) have the final say here. We are no longer dealing with mere rise and fall of empire, but of changes to the relatively narrow range of conditions that allowed our species and much of the current biota to arise. These changes are historically unprecedented and potentially catastrophic. Climate is being pushed into "chaos", and what has been termed as the Earth's 6th great mass extinction event appears to be well underway.

Your advice to "idealistic young people" is in part right but you miss the other parts. For one thing, most of them are much more aware of both these threats and just how screwed they (and any of their own descendants, if they should even contemplate that) will be; and they're not going to go quietly and peacefully into the night. They know who the people & entities are who have done this to them...i.e. put their lives and security in jeopardy. They'll.have the names and there will be an accounting.

Yet in any case they / we actually have far more power than you suggest. Our only remaining real power is in our collective capital and labor. Properly organized and targeted, it can and will change the status quo. And it will likely go far beyond the ballot box

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-18 10:15:24

I don't think the focus should primarily be on costs of action, and who pays, though that is an important consideration. Complex systems (such as markets, economies, and human interactions with the biosphere) become especially problematic when the feedback into the system is either incomplete, or not timely; or otherwise distorted. Without accurate, timely feedback , the system can't easily be adjusted / optimized/ etc. In our case, one important aspect is that the marketplace is so distorted that it can not function properly. This is in part because of subsidies both direct and indirect (such as externalization of costs related to pollution, climate destabilization, etc.) . These are the result of public policies made by governments. Removing these subsidies, and disallowing the externalization of costs would allow the market place to function better to encourage voluntary changes of behavior.

And yes, as the true costs of the gas-guzzler, and all its supportive infrastructure (parking?) are more closely reflected in its price (and in the price of the fuel), alternatives gain. Just look at the difference between cars in, say, Europe and those in the U.S. And yes, public transport becomes a viable option: in part because people demand it and elect those who "get" it.

This latter topic is rather specific and I happen to be deeply involved so I have to hold myself in check so as not to run on here, but I will say just w/r/t one piece of it: public transport can be accomplished with far more energy-efficiency and cost-effectiveness than most would think. I'm working to establish a commuter-rail system, which could use existing rails, and electric rail-cars; which could be charged with renewable energy sources - integrated into the system. The system would be far more easily expanded as needed and with far less cost than for example trying to add lanes to roadways.

What's holding it up? Several things; politicians and those who fund them (always a fundamental problem), cheap (subsidized) gas and a well organized highway-oriented private interest lobby that has figured out how to game the system to continue the profits they make from the status quo.

Fixing these problems is monumental, and it probably has to start with removing the ability of private capital to control both electoral and policy politics. And THAT will likely require a mass public movement because the current system is too corrupt to expect it to allow any substantive changes from within.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-18 09:53:06

One should not argue with weasel words then. Say what you think and mean what you say. And yes, you did use sweeping generalizations that detract from your points.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-18 09:15:27

Because we all comment for our own pleasure, the responsibility for proofing our comments lies squarely with ourselves.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-18 02:00:35

I've been following the coverage and I realise that neoliberal policies are part of the reason. But that doesn't invalidate my point: effective action against AGW will cost all of us dearly, whether we like it or not, and I've yet to see activists in the movement presenting well-thought-out methods to persuade the middle classes and poorer people to shoulder their parts of the burden. The richer need to be paying a lot more - for example, to create much better public transport which is free for all, even though that itself is highly problematic in terms of energy use.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-18 01:57:04

If you give the matter a little thought, you'll accept that you are as much in favour of politically-correct language as anyone else is. Would you use the n-word for a black person, for example, or call someone with a disability a 'spastic'? So with 'freshman'. Or should you, Mr Smith, be labelled a 'commentwoman'? Merely because a term is widely used is irrelevant to whether it should be used at all.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-18 01:52:09

Translation: gifts.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 23:22:58

You are such a clown.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 21:24:52

As far as the US goes we could use half the defense budget and still be way ahead of everybody else in defense spending. Even the military considers it a national security priority.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 21:18:42

LOL.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 21:13:44

And we have another specimen of the brainwashed....assuming there was anything to wash. Trolls get blocked.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2018-12-17 20:45:01

This is a neat article, a pile of excited theory presented as though it were the least bit doable, which it is not. This sort of off the grid approach speaks to great idealism, fine ethical goals (in part) and some deep thinking. The kids deserve real credit, and I appreciate having it to read. Where it falls flat is it's presumption that these ideas command power over real people. They do not, in fact they agitate human resistance. No you cannot run my life because you think it's important to "save the planet" is what most people will tell you.

Power and politics are an old man's game, and very old things. If you want to understand politics read about Rome, not about some green ideas. All things political eventually roll around to fundamental human nature which is why greed (millionaire class) ran Rome 2500 years ago, ran the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, ran every Kingdom since, and runs the USA today etc. Liberty of property rights was the last great advancement over those Kings and totalitarians that crushed people back when there was no pollution and no industrial activity. Kids today are not able to, nor are they going to be able to, change fundamental property-rights based government in this world.

My advice to idealistic young people is to change themselves where it matters rather than demanding to run the world from a forlorn position of little power. Here are two pieces of the puzzle: 1.) Have only the number of children that replace yourselves, 2.) Absolutely refuse to pick up a gun for your government and go to it's wars of choice. Do that, change the world. Take people's trucks and cars? No way you cannot do it.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 18:22:32

You mean loans? Or gifts? And where do you get any idea that this relates to "reintroduction of American productive capacity"? We are already the most productive workers on Earth by some measures. We simply cost too much. Coops are unlikely to lower wages and therefore unlikely to attract production.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 18:10:12

Step aside, bitch, you'll be spared.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 17:51:32

With a green new deal must be included a concerted attack on value production, which cannot avoid being an attack on markets.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2018-12-17 17:36:13

Included in any green new deal must be provision of funds for worker owned cooperative start ups.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2018-12-17 17:32:11

Spare me, you patronizing ass. Though you are doing well for 113 years old.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 15:24:07

I agree with the general tenor of this article, but at this point the emergency is so great that EVERY aspect of our culture and policies must be tuned towards solution. This includes using market forces - yes, the capitalistic system in place. That's because marketplace decisions have much to bear on both the problem and potential solutions. One needn't be a defender of or advocate for capitalism to understand this.

People will continue driving gas-guzzlers, leave them running in parking lots while their kids or parents go shopping, will continue to dress in summer clothes during winter while cranking their thermostats up, will not invest in energy conservation for their homes, etc., as long as fossil fuels are cheap. They are cheap in part because of past government investments, because of massive military expenditures around the globe to control energy resources, and because of existing subsidies, and because of externalization of costs (to other peoples and times). Just fixing these market distortions would fix much of the problem - by providing more accurate feedback into the complex system called the marketplace / economy.

So while I share the author's concerns about ceding this discussion to the profiteers, the proposed solution set must certainly understand and address the market and the relationships between the masses and the capitalist system in which they live - or it will be fraught with problems.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-17 15:15:16

YES. The mistake is yours, you are laying too much stricture on my observations, which are not meant to be definitive (and not written as such) but literary, because just like you I understand that any simple generalization on the French situation is going to be wrong.

That is why I use "... could be said to be" & "... so called" in the comment - as a way to discuss, not define. I am not hard labeling anyone or anything. I am keeping it loose and observational. Relax. I know a little bit about writing and human nature too.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 15:13:36

If you are an advocate of politically correct re-engineering of the language, just say so. Nobody misunderstands "freshman" as gender specific ie male only.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 15:03:00

NO. Please read again my comment. The press has widely misrepresented what the protests are about. You also use sweeping stereotypes to portray them all as "progressive or downtrodden"; and you apply a sweeping generalization in labeling the protesters "selfish". Your world seems to have everything in black and white, than in colors with shades and varying intensities. The protests are primarily about inequities. That Macron reduced taxes on the rich while sticking it to the working class. THAT is primarily what this is about, and even that is too much a simplistic generalization.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-17 15:01:26

That's a nice irony you point out; the yellow vest movement could be said to be fighting a climate change tax! So these so called progressives or downtrodden may be seen as patently selfish, rather than altruistic. And in further irony, the elite effete Macron is the one pointing it out!

This plays well within my personal observational philosophy that people are human animals with a very imperfect nature that is comfort-seeking and simple to understand. You can have an unhappy cranky populace, as long as they can go for a cheap drive and price of bread & wine is low.

Mark Twain works here: "I find that principles have no real force except when one is well fed."

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 14:14:02

I don't buy his assessment because there is no assessment. It's flailing & whining and boilerplate PC climate change hysteria, hiding the classic need of the loud demanding lynch mob to dominate the scenario. I am philosophically opposed to handing the mic to the loudest, I don't side with the girl just because she is crying, I don't presume the better dressed is smarter, etc.

You handled him well, befriending but gently challenging. "Any good ideas?" is perfect. He doesn't even know what you mean by that invitation.

There is a saying from Bertrand Russell that fits here: "Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear."

P.S. please check my grammar etc.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 14:00:12

There has to be "something wrong" with people you oppose, that is the crux of your approach. You might instead, if your motives are honest, ask what is wrong with yourself.

When in 40 years you are my age, and only some things were done to address climate change and you are still able to think on it (when you are not thinking of your grandchildren), you'll be most pleased if you see that population growth was controlled by voluntary means via incentives. You'll look at your neediness to force everyone to behave/think a certain way as naive and totalitarian. I'll be dead, you'll be me.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 13:50:57

If you be willing to proofread for typos I'd appreciate it. Post the corrections as you find them, and I'll edit them as you see above. Great service, thanks!

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 13:40:38

Nope can't stand Libertarians, consider them selfish and illogical, people must have good government and it must be pluralist. But see how you are? You attack an imaginary view of me, wasting our time. I have the experience, the reading, the teaching, and the writing, to always remain a step ahead of your attack style of discourse.

I suggest, because you seem to care, that you read 50 books on the history of the transition to the modern world from the Medieval world, and 50 books on Ancient Rome and Greece.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-17 13:28:49

I'm afraid that just as much of the main stream press, you may be misinterpreting the gilets jaunes "movement". While gas taxes (allegedly to address carbon emissions) may have been a trigger, the broader reaction was to the clear inequities promoted by the neoliberal Macron / establishment. The feeling that the rich are creating problems yet pushing austerity measures on the less fortunate.

Posted by JessJuanDring on 2018-12-17 11:34:37

It isn't me you need to convince. I agree with your assessment. But many activists think that most people will happily bear the costs right now. They clearly won't and prefer to pretend it's a problem for another day. How to convince people who, as Macron said, are quite rationally thinking of the end of the month, not the end of the world, is not easy.

Any good ideas?

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-17 08:06:42

Politician.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 06:59:33

The "relatively wealthy people of the world" haven't seen anything yet. The fires, flooding, super storms, etc we have seen so far are merely the preview to the blockbuster movie of climate change, but already the costs are staggering. This will break the world's banks, stock markets, political structures, everything. The expense of timely mitigation would have been nothing compared to the expense of tackling it now, and when it sounds like you and they will be ready, when chaos has struck, no expense will be enough. What is wrong with you people? Can't you see that?

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 06:58:44

I'm as much in favour of socialism and I accept AGW completely. But, unfortunately, Mr Smith has some truth on his side. The gilets jaunes in Paris show one thing: a lot of us relatively wealthy people in the global north won't allow climate action once it affects our wallets. To enable the necessary actions to happen, activists and Green party politicians have a lot more to do to bring people alongside.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-17 05:27:38

"it's authors". Please learn the functions of the apostrophe and when not to use one.

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-17 05:24:56

What gender is a "freshman congresswoman"?

Posted by srh1965 on 2018-12-17 05:21:33

You are operating from ideology, doubtless libertarian, not facts. But all the ideology in the world won't save us when the shit hits the fan in 20 or 30 years, more than it already is. There was time in the 70s for a go-slow approach, but we took a no-go approach instead. We have frittered away that luxury. We have laws against killing people and stealing, what about laws designed to mitigate (too late to prevent) .the total disruption and eventual destruction of civilization, or does that sound like a good thing to you, the complete libertarian-ism of everybody? Which most people call chaos.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-17 02:27:28

The program of New Green Deal are facts, and not my opinion, if you can read. Implementation is proposed via oppressive mandate, not by my opinion. Can you read? The large rich nations are "blamed" because oppressive ideologues always have a blame component to their schemes to run other's lives. Can you read????

I don't oppose green proposals, I don't even own a TV and I live very simply. What I am doing is a reality check on behalf of most of the people in at least America. 85% of people want nothing to do with petty tyrant socialists even if they like the environmental ideas. People will not be pushed around and ruled by naive kids who've never worked for a living or owned a thing and who assign blame ignorantly. If you cannot recognize petty tyrants you probably spend too much time in engineering books instead of history books, & loved your bosses at Las Alamos. (one of if not the richest community in America I might ad.)

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-16 17:41:13

You are dead wrong on all of that. Your "facts" are opinions formed by propaganda. Population is a large problem, but the denial "movement" was started by the fossil fuel industry, primarily Koch Industries and Exxon.The large, rich countries are blamed because they produce the most carbon, China and the US, in that order. though everybody else is jumping onboard as fast as they can. Cars are getting bigger, not smaller. I worked with the Alternative Energy program out of Los Alamos Labs during the Carter admin, which created the concept of passive solar and how to do it, among other things, including early PV. Many of the concepts for the LEED standards, now used internationally for energy conservation in building design, originally came from that program.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-16 15:29:43

This movement doesn't have "everybody." It has fanatics, and supporters in about half the population. The fanatics want to kick you out of your house, and the supporters want free change without hassle. It's less popular than the NFL. And they are devoted to being impractical, they don't bring up the single most important tool to slow carbon fuel use: birth control in undeveloped nations. This is because a huge component of their shtick is blame and ideology. Their schema of blaming the rich nations goes beyond assigning responsibility, they are vengeful, and when you are vengeful you will experience resistance equal to your vengeance, because you empower people to legitimately hate you.

Facts are difficult things to ignore. This socialist scheme is destined to fail because it's authors do not respect people who do not agree with them. They play favorites with cultures. They are as authoritarian as the people they wish to overcome. PS the Carter admin did very little to progress green economy aside from moving power generation in the US off of coal.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-16 13:48:19

At this late date, 40+ years after the Carter administration made a great start on solutions only to have the program shut down by the Reagan admin, we heed to use every tool at our disposal to mitigate global warming. To a great extent it has been "The Market", i.e. capitalism, that is responsible for the rise of solar and wind power across the country, reflecting the concern of the people, if not the government, for the crisis. It is counterproductive to denigrate that progress. Rather it should be enlisted along with everything else we can muster in the life or death battle ahead. More "green capitalism" is part of what we need. What we don't need is fossil-fuel capitalism. That said, leaving critical functions solely to private enterprise is always a disaster. This is going to take everybody.

Posted by acme on 2018-12-15 16:23:47

All you say is: "I am a Troll." I don't know how to refute that when your words speak for themselves.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-15 07:21:17

And yet can you refute what I'm saying about the progressive solution to climate change? They imply it at every opportunity, however they just don't have the courage to say it out loud.

Posted by Newman Noggs on 2018-12-15 01:12:20

The proposals in this story are evidence that there exists a healthy, if delusional, micro Left in America. Good to see, diversity of ideas matters. I hope they get some input on policy, perhaps 5 minutes time as a new bill to tear up Alaska runs them over on it's way to approval.

It is important to have never read any history and therefore be able to ignore human nature when making Lefty totalitarian demands like we see in this piece. Broke disadvantaged people all over the world are capitalists not socialists, they won't share a cheap dirty plastic pail with you, but they will rent it. It is children of relative comfort who can come up with these wild raving ideas about "keep it in the ground." Perhaps never having had a real job, they don't understand that labor is not free, so nothing else is free including getting to make policy.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-14 11:00:09

Some posts from Noggs:

"Why do they keep referring to it as the prophet mohammed? Why not just refer to it as islam's prophet? It's not THE prophet. It's a child raping freak."

"I don't believe her. Cheers to Brett Kavanaugh."

"What's the NFL?"

So while this particular post is clever enough to fool a fellow troll (fuster) it's just drool from the mouth of a guy who a classic American dullard. Loves Cavanaugh (probably fantasizes about rape) hates the NFL (oooh all those Black guys running fast - yuk).

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-14 10:48:03

In your rush to be the cleverest insult monkey on the tree, you overlooked that Noggs is being sarcastic. Look at his other posts before you fall for the trap he's setting for progressive idealists:

"Why do they keep referring to it as the prophet mohammed? Why not just refer to it as islam's prophet? It's not THE prophet. It's a child raping freak.

I don't believe her. Cheers to Brett Kavanaugh.

What's the NFL?"

He's not a progressive you can attack, he's just like you, an insult monkey of the online jungle.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-14 10:47:41

I'm sure that you're already used to a turd-based diet, ya ridiculous shhthead

Posted by fuster on 2018-12-14 06:29:55

We Have To Make Sure the “Green New Deal” Doesn’t Become Green Capitalism----

we really don't have to worry about that happening because the Green New Deal isn't going to even come close to happening

Posted by fuster on 2018-12-14 06:24:37

In order to stop climate change we, as a people, need to STOP. Stop consuming, stop reproducing, stop our lust for a better life. The people need to get used to living a subsistence lifestyle. The people need to get used to the reintroduction of small-scale agriculture. Non people of color will have to work a little harder. 18 hour days versus 12 hour days. It's a just solution. All of us will have to get used to a 1,600 calorie daily insect-based diet if we want to save the earth. We need to come together in this time of climate catastrophe.